The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Scrutiny Committee's procedure to comply with principles of natural justice and fair play, including providing the petitioner with copies of reports and reasons for re-enquiry, and granting the petitioner an opportunity to produce additional evidence in support of her claim.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, praying for the following substantive reliefs: -

(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2007 passed by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee;

(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the caste certificate dated 31.3.1990 issued by the Competent Authority of jurisdiction in favour of Petitioner as belonging to Hindu Mahadeo Koli-Scheduled Tribe is valid, legal and subsisting;

(c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee to issue caste validity certificate in respect of the caste certificate dated 31.03.1990 issued by the Competent Authority of jurisdiction in favour of Petitioner as belonging to Hindu Mahadeo Koli-Scheduled Tribe;

(d) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 & 4 to appoint Petitioner on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police / Assistant Commissioner of Police, Class I;

(e) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra to frame the Rules regarding affinity, sociology, anthropology, ethnology, ancestry, anthropological mooring, ethological kinship, genetic trait, peculiar tribal customs, ingrained tribal traits, endemic characteristics etc. for determining the caste / tribe claim;

(f) This petition be allowed in terms of prayer clause “a”, “b”, “c”, “d” & “e” above, and for that purpose appropriate writ, order and/or directions be issued.

2. The facts are briefly set out. The petitioner - Vaishali Baban Dhumal (hereafter ‘Vaishali’ for short) claims to belong to the “Hindu Mahadev Koli” which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The caste certificate dated March 31, 1990 issued by the Competent Authority in favour of Vaishali as belonging to Hindu Mahadev Koli-Scheduled Tribe was scrutinized by the respondent no. 2- Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region, Pune (hereafter ‘the Scrutiny Committee’ for short) as per the procedure laid down under the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereafter ‘the Act’ for short) and the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (hereafter ‘the Rules’ for short).

3. By the impugned order dated February 23, 2007, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe claim of Vaishali for the reasons recorded in such order.

4. Dr. Uday Warunjikar, learned advocate for Vaishali, assailed the impugned order on various grounds. According to him, the per-constitutional documents on record of close relatives of Vaishali from the paternal side, which have a great probative value are not considered in the proper perspective by the Scrutiny Committee. Dr. Warunjikar submitted that the home enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell under the Rules resulted in the Vigilance Cell issuing a favourable report dated May 16, 2005 (hereafter ‘the first report’ for short) supporting Vaishali’s tribe claim. The Scrutiny Committee, not satisfied with the first report, called for another report from the Vigilance Cell. According to him, even the subsequent report dated July 18, 2005 (hereafter ‘the second report’ for short) of the Vigilance Cell was favourable to Vaishali. The Scrutiny Committee again called upon the Vigilance Cell to re-inquire into the matter and submit a fresh report. It is this report dated November 28, 2005 (hereafter ‘the third report’ for short) that is not in favour of Vaishali’s tribe claim. Learned advocate submits that the Scrutiny Committee is not empowered to direct the Vigilance Cell to re-inquire into the matter once a report has been submitted upon proper enquiry. It i